• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Douglas H. Paal"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "China",
    "East Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Security"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

In The Media
Carnegie China

Rice's ASEAN "Gardening"

Yesterday U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dropped in on an important Asian political conference she has missed in recent years. Ms. Rice's decision to attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' Regional Forum in Singapore this week is a welcome if belated sign that the Bush administration has begun to give Asia its due as the new global center of gravity.

Link Copied
By Douglas H. Paal
Published on Jul 24, 2008
Program mobile hero image

Program

Asia

The Asia Program in Washington studies disruptive security, governance, and technological risks that threaten peace, growth, and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific region, including a focus on China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula.

Learn More

Source: The Wall Street Journal Asia

Yesterday U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dropped in on an important Asian political conference she has missed in recent years. Ms. Rice's decision to attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' Regional Forum in Singapore this week is a welcome if belated sign that the Bush administration has begun to give Asia its due as the new global center of gravity.

However late in the game Ms. Rice's trip comes, it means a lot in a region too often neglected by Washington. In late 1991, President George H.W. Bush planned an extensive trip through Asia to make good on past promises for visits the Gulf War had postponed. With the departure date closing in, pollster Bob Teeter told Mr. Bush the public thought he was paying too much attention overseas and not enough at home. The administration scrapped the trip, and announced its decision to the White House press corps before informing ambassadors or foreign capitals. It was not that Mr. Bush's most sensitive moment.

But it was part of a broader pattern on the U.S. side of shortchanging Asia. Because of the distances involved, both geographical and cultural, American leaders traditionally have visited Asia less than Europe. Yet as Asia rises in the global economy and international relations, we cannot afford to continue that pattern.

Whatever its party, the next U.S. administration will find itself facing the challenge of organizing coalitions in Asia that manage both to involve many of the relevant actors and to advance American interests. U.S. leaders have long complained that Asia presents too many international fora doing too little besides talking. The time is ripe for proposing constructive alternatives.

Consider the current panoply of ineffective groups and meetings. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings assemble the right heads of state to discuss security -- but are confined by the group's charter to economic talks. Asean organizes many ministerial and lower-level meetings, but has rarely been able to leverage that attendance into anything more than symbolism. The six-party talks on North Korea could offer new advances on security cooperation, but no one knows yet whether that group will even be effective in its current mission, let alone any expanded functions.

To constructively engage the region by building an effective organization, the U.S. could try to build on one or more of the existing groups, but it would probably have to press for either additions to, or subtractions from, the membership. Or it could propose something new, which would include the right people to address important issues like humanitarian assistance, pandemics, environmental challenges, finance, trade and eventually security.

The important thing will be for U.S. leaders to develop a clear idea of American objectives, and also of the best way to achieve those goals. The U.S. also must show Asian countries, regularly and publicly, that their concerns are being considered at the highest levels of American government.

In Asian countries, where one is always expected to respect "face," canceling participation in a meeting or simply failing to attend causes needless ill will. As secretary of state, George Shultz set a high standard in dealing with the region. Despite the many pressures on his schedule, he regularly made the Asia-Pacific rounds, stopping sometimes in lesser capitals to advance the American agenda. He referred to the practice as "gardening."

The U.S. hasn't been out to the garden often enough in recent years, and the next administration will likely be called upon to pay more attention to it. Showing up is a good start.

 

The article first appeared on the Wall Street Journal Asia

About the Author

Douglas H. Paal

Distinguished Fellow, Asia Program

Paal previously served as vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase International and as unofficial U.S. representative to Taiwan as director of the American Institute in Taiwan.

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    America’s Future in a Dynamic Asia

      Douglas H. Paal

  • Q&A
    U.S.-China Relations at the Forty-Year Mark
      • +1

      Douglas H. Paal, Tong Zhao, Chen Qi, …

Douglas H. Paal
Distinguished Fellow, Asia Program
Douglas H. Paal
EconomyMilitaryForeign PolicySecurityChinaEast Asia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    The Plaza Accord and Its Relevance for China

    The Plaza Accord was not an externally imposed punishment of Japan but part of a broader restructuring that Japanese economists and policymakers themselves recognized was necessary. Its effects were undermined, however, when Tokyo responded to the resulting slowdown with policies that exacerbated investment, credit expansion, and the very imbalances the adjustment was intended to resolve.

      Michael Pettis

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    What to Watch When Trump and Xi Meet in Washington

    The real test may come after the leaders leave the room.

      • Sheena Chestnut Greitens
      • Oriana Skylar Mastro's headshot
      • +1

      Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Oriana Skylar Mastro, Yukon Huang, …

  • large boat sitting off a coastline
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Impacts of the Houthis’ Advance Could Extend Well Beyond Saudi Arabia

    The Horn of Africa countries are among those facing a new security calculus.

      • Andrew Leber
      • Dr. Lesley Anne Warner

      Andrew Leber, Lesley Anne Warner

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will the Far Right Change Europe’s Russia Policy?

    The European far right might fail to steer EU policy in the direction Russia wants, but they will create enough chaos inside Europe to benefit the Kremlin.

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Greenland United States Denmark Agreement Nuuk
    Commentary
    The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of Time

    The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.

      Marc Pierini

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.